This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Not really, I am making a point that you try to pin an absolute label on something when it is anything but absolute. There is indeed a self-hatred possibility and some gay people have done that to themselves.

The main point is, I don't know if we will ever know the REAL truth about what happened, but it seems some people on either side will parrot their point as the "truth".

"The other side" is not anti-gay individuals in this case...it is in fact an author and investigative journalist that happens to BE gay and his book and research is reviewed by an editor in chief that happens to BE gay, offered on a website that happens to BE pro gay rights. We may not 'know' now the 'truth'...but we certainly have a radically different narrative...correct? One that can either be examined by all or completely dismissed out of hand because it doesnt fit the mythology that they WANT to believe.

And that was what kind of hate crime is it when both the perp, and the victim are gay?

If the gay person was self-hating and the basis of the crime was because Matt was a homosexual, it would still be a hate crime. Now, me personally I think the idea of hate crimes is idiotic. I think a murder should be a murder regardless of whether it is a hate crime or not. If people don't like the sentences of murder, they should increase it and give discretion to the judge.

"The other side" is not anti-gay individuals in this case...it is in fact an author and investigative journalist that happens to BE gay and his book and research is reviewed by an editor in chief that happens to BE gay, offered on a website that happens to BE pro gay rights. We may not 'know' now the 'truth'...but we certainly have a radically different narrative...correct? One that can either be examined by all or completely dismissed out of hand because it doesnt fit the mythology that they WANT to believe.

I didn't claim the "other side". My point still stands. And I agree it's a completely radically different narrative and I didn't dismisss it. I simply said that claiming it as truth is incorrect at this time.

If the gay person was self-hating and the basis of the crime was because Matt was a homosexual, it would still be a hate crime.

I think that is too broad to apply with any certainty. We know through the interviews, that the killer was on a days long meth binge, and we know that he knew Shepard through drugs, and casual sex, so whether or not the killing was done over some inner struggle of being gay that this perp was going through, or whether he was seeking drugs that Shepard had, we may not know for sure, but my bet would be on the drugs.

Now, me personally I think the idea of hate crimes is idiotic. I think a murder should be a murder regardless of whether it is a hate crime or not. If people don't like the sentences of murder, they should increase it and give discretion to the judge.

Agreed. The "hate crime" designation is only there to place certain groups in protected classes of people. IOW, unequal in the eyes of the law.

Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.
Alexis de Tocqueville

I didn't claim the "other side". My point still stands. And I agree it's a completely radically different narrative and I didn't dismisss it. I simply said that claiming it as truth is incorrect at this time.

I would agree that it may or may not be THE truth (because unless there is videographic evidence of intent...well...its rather subjective). I think the point behind the book and the position from The Advocate is that there IS a radically different narrative, one that is in opposition to the mythology seized on by pro gay rights groups and turned into a 'cause'. Personally...I think the fact that it can be examined for what it was...whatever it was...is 'progress'.

One of the things that has bothered me about the gay rights 'movement' is how easily and readily they will seize on certain events...but ONLY certain events...events with the "right kind" of perpetrators to advance their cause. The Matthew Shepard murder was a tragedy, regardless of how it played out, and it was turned into a national event and cause. However, in Mississippi we have the first openly gay mayoral candidate come out and suddenly he is murdered just before the election and it is a NATIONAL event...right up until it is revealed the perpetrator is a black man. Dammit! There went all that homophobic, bash the south rhetoric, all in less than a New York minute. New York, BTW, where there have been NUMEROUS gay bashing incidents, all kept nice, tidy, quiet, and local. Why? Because the perps have been largely black, just like in Atlanta........

Like I have said...when your cause is for sale...you have no cause. Had Matthew Shepards murderer been black (straight or gay)...the story would have been buried by noon.